Introduction.

What is 'A Brief History of Timelessness' all about?

This site is all about the possibility that we may be completely wrong to assume a thing called 'Time' exists.

What makes this particular discussion unique is that rather than starting from the assumption that "a thing called time exists", and trying to work out the reality from there, A Brief History of Timelessness, starts without assumptions, and simply asks...

What do we actually observe?

This incredibly simple question, and starting point, seems to have been missed by virtually all experts on 'Time'.

In answering this question it is suggested...

We seem to observe that matter/energy exists, and,

This matter/energy seems to be able to move, change and interact in all directions.

From here, rather than just assuming a thing called time must exist for things to be able to exist and move, we ask a key question...

IF the matter in the universe just exists, moves, changes and interacts in all directions...

not 'heading into a future', and

not 'leaving a temporal past behind it'...

would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming there was a 'past' and/or 'future' and thus time?

It is this question and what it reveals as it is applied to common observations, and sophisticated theories that is at the heart of the possibility of timelessness, and that is examined in detail in these pages, videos, and the eBook.

Please enjoy the site

Matthew Marsden.

Some reviews of the Book and Show "A Brief History of Timelessness".

These may seem like valid questions, but they may
also be mis-leading from the outset, because they all start by innocently
apparently asking about a thing called "Time".

And if we ask about a specific thing, then we are
half way to assuming that thing may exist already, and if it actually does not
then we may never get to see this! Which may be why publications like "Scientific American" publish specials on 'time'

suggesting [Time] - It begins, it ends, it's real, it's an illusion. It's the ultimate paradox. All starting from the assumption a thing called time exists, without first testing our most basic observations and conclusions.

So instead, "A Brief History of
Timelessness" starts by asking not the clichéd and scientifically
unanswered question "what is time?", but instead the hopefully, far less
leading question...

And from the easily checked assumption that
"matter seems to exist, move, change and interact", the book explores
the possibility that this alone may be enough to mislead us into possibly wrongly
assuming a "past", a "future", and thus
"time" all may exist.

This site, the eBook, and you-tube
videos, are all about the possibility that 'Time' is just a mistaken
idea, and absolutely does not exist.

Instead it is suggested that perhaps things in the universe just exist, move,
and change 'now'... With no 'past' ever
existing in anyway whatsoever... and no 'Future' ever
being headed into.

The main issue this work examines is the fact that wherever you or I think we
are talking about something called 'The Past', we are always only ever actually
talking about something we recollect in our minds. And, while the
contents of our minds seem to suggest it is 'obvious' there is 'a past',
this work shows how the contents of our minds may not be good enough reason to
suspect the idea of "the past" points to a real phenomena.

From there we see that if 'the past' does not actually, really, exist in
any way at all whatsoever... (other than as an idea in our minds...) then there
is also no reason to think 'the future' actually really exists either, any we
may just be falsely assuming that ideas we can form in our head must be
"about the future", and thus a reason to suspect it
exists.

If 'the past' and 'the future' do not actually exist, and are just useful
ideas, it is shown that instead we may just be in a world full of moving and
changing matter, which, wrongly gives us the false impression that there
is also a thing called time, and if there is no time, then it cannot have a flow, order, or "arrow".

But this still leaves us with a lot of essentially valid scientific theories
and observations to be accounted for. In particular Einstein’s Special and General Relativity.
Re which the author sets out to show how the essence of reference frame and gravitational dilation
can still be entirely valid, but may be not about "time dilation",
but just about "rates of change", "now".

What this site is, and is not about.

For some reason, some people seem to assume this site
is about every complicated problem they can imagine, and that it suggests
nothing exists, or that everything we think we know is wrong...

As such some people seem to add things I have not
said, to what I’m saying, and then complain that what they have asserted
makes no sense.

It is important to note, that all I am
addressing throughout my work is the “theory of time”, and all I am doing is
showing how that theory may be entirely unfounded, unproven, unnecessary, and
moot – because everything the theory purports to explain, and all the apparent
paradoxes it seems to present, seem to be able to be explained and resolved if
we very carefully consider the possibility...

The reason for investigating this is because many
lay people and professional scientists seem to have addressed the problem of
time in rather incomplete and unscientific ways, jumping to conclusions and
accepting a complete lack of evidence, and circular logic in their arguments.

And becasue no other article or book, writer, or scientist, on the subject
of time, that i have found, has considered the above question and possibility, let alone considered
it and been able to dismiss it in favour of 'time' existing. Leading for example
professional publications like

while I think ‘time’ can be shown to be
a (in places useful) misunderstanding, without any paradoxes. And The constructive aspect of this approach is
that it may eliminate and resolve all problems , questions and paradoxes
around the theory of time.

Eliminating an invalid component from our T.O.E or
G.U.T, and for example solving the apparent “problem of time”, and explain why
we may be wrong from the outset to assume ‘time’ with a direction seems
apparent on a classical scale, but not on a quantum scale.

Please use the main table, index to the left and the search box at the top
right of this page to navigate the site.

Welcome to...

If the SEARCH box is not working in your browser try the googlesites direct link